Israel’s top court bans far-right candidate from election, allows Arab slate to run
By Ruth Eglash -- March 17 at 5:03 PM
JERUSALEM — Israel’s Supreme Court on Sunday disqualified a far-right candidate from the April 9 national election and overturned a decision by the Central Election Committee to block a joint Arab slate and a candidate from a leftist alliance from the race.
Human rights groups and representatives of the Arab-led parties welcomed the court’s ruling rejecting last week’s vote by the election committee, a body made up of representatives of each political faction in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.
[link omitted ...] At the same time, Michael Ben Ari, leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit faction, called the decision to prevent his candidacy anti-democratic.
“There is a legal junta here who wants to take over our lives,” Ben Ari said in a statement. “This is not democracy.”
Ben Ari accused Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit of scuttling his political plans. The country’s top lawyer had written a legal opinion that Ben Ari not be allowed to run, citing an incitement of racism.
Parties and individuals can be disqualified from running for office for three reasons — rejecting Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or expressing support for an enemy state or for terrorist organizations.
Ben Ari and his party, which translates as Jewish Power, have argued for the forcible transfer of Israel’s minority Arabs unless they swear an oath of loyalty. The faction had been given a shot at entering the Knesset thanks to a deal it reached with two other far-right parties. The agreement was encouraged by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli commentators and U.S. Jewish groups condemned the move, viewing Jewish Power as an offshoot of Kach, a group once led by an extremist rabbi, Meir Kahane. Israel outlawed Kach several decades ago, and the United States considers it a terrorist organization. The U.S.-born Kahane was assassinated in New York in 1990.
[...]
With AIPAC soon convening in DC with leading Israeli candidates for top office, Netanyahu the incumbent and Gantz, the challenger both set to be AIPAC speakers, it is possible public (vs side-rooom) discussion might touch upon the top court's decision and rationale. From Reuters:
[...]
The premier’s partnership with Jewish Power also drew rare censure from the U.S. pro-Israel lobby and normally staunch Netanyahu backer AIPAC, which branded the party “racist and reprehensible”.
A poll aired by public broadcaster Kan on Sunday put Likud narrowly in the lead to form the next coalition government with a projected 31 of parliament’s 120 seats against 30 for Gantz’s Blue and White party.
If reelected, Netanyahu will become Israel’s longest-serving premier in July. That bid was dealt an unprecedented blow last month when Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit announced a plan to indict Netanyahu for bribery and breach of trust. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and could forestall formal charges in a review hearing after the election.
Raam-Balad, which held eight seats in the last parliament, said the Supreme Court had upheld its “fundamental right to represent our electorate while Netanyahu and Gantz compete to see who can incite more powerfully against the Arab public”.
Presuming the Israeli court functions as our appellate courts; there likely was a formal opinion issued stating the rationale and reasoning of whatever the majority constituted; possibly per curium if unanimous or individually authored, with or without dissenting or concurring opinions. Present limited web study has not found an English online version of any such opining, if any. The news reports are all that were considered, and they were discovered only because a Google Alert was set = Israel lobby. The two cited reports were in the day's return list.
___________UPDATE____________
Less promising news of language nuance carrying heavy non-nuanced implications; Lara Friedman, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, writes.
The land in question was seized as a prize of war; promises of reasonableness were made; and ongoing steady colonization of the conquered and IDF occupied territories has been Israeli action; causing international scorn, but with the best the U.S. of A. would muster being a U.N. Security Council abstention allowing a 14-0 vote to pass critical of the colonization of wartime seized land treated as if annexable spoils of war. Ms. Friedman writes of "occupied" being eroded as the only fair term to be used about the Israeli conduct re the land.